Behavioral economics of waste management: …...words (APPENDIX III). The new signage formats, in addition to the initial signage were displayed together, and then an informal survey

Behavioral economics of waste management:

Identifying factors that influence personal waste sorting practices

Lauren Menzer1, Isadora Parnell-Wolfe1, Matthew O’Carroll2, Dusty Perkins3

Abstract: The University of California system-wide goal of Zero Waste by 2020 continues to both

encourage and challenge campuses to increase their waste diversion practices. While the

infrastructure necessary for improving waste management practices has been introduced at

University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), waste audits have revealed that poor personal waste

sorting practices are a limiting factor in the overall effectiveness of waste programs, and have the

ability to negate many benefits of the structural improvements. The Refuse & Recycling Research

Center at UCSB has focused on analyzing individuals’ interactions with their waste in order to

improve better personal waste management practices. Over 1,300 individuals were observed and

data on their specific interactions with their waste materials, receptacles, and signage were

recorded. After identifying common trends, it was determined that the initial signage created

confusion and was inhibiting individuals from correctly sorting their waste. New signage was

developed and introduced, which ultimately resulted in an overall 10% increase in the waste

diversion rate in total. While there are additional strategies that can be applied, the implementation

of the new signage prompted a behavioral change in how individuals disposed of their waste.

Keywords: landfill; compost; recycling; BigBelly Solar; PLA 7; diversion rate; serviceware; chi-

square analysis

1 Refuse & Recycling Research Center, Facilities Management - University of California at Santa Barbara, Goleta, CA 93106;

[email protected] 2 Facilities Management - University of California at Santa Barbara, Goleta, CA 93106.

3 Department of Life Sciences - College of Western Idaho, Nampa, ID 83687.

2

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 3

METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................... 4

Locations ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Initial Observations .......................................................................................................................... 5

Additional Variables ......................................................................................................................... 5

Signage Redesign ............................................................................................................................. 6

Additional Variables Applied ............................................................................................................ 6

Secondary Observation .................................................................................................................... 6

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 7

RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................. 7

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Differences between Eateries ........................................................................................................ 12

Disposal of PLA 7 Products ............................................................................................................. 15

Additional Observations................................................................................................................. 16

FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................ 17

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 18

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 19

3

INTRODUCTION

The University of California-wide goal of Zero Waste by 2020 continues to encourage and challenge

UC campuses to increase their waste diversion practices. The University of California, Santa Barbara

(UCSB) has been successful in implementing sustainability programs through infrastructure

updates and behavioral modification. However, with new products and technology being

continuously introduced, in addition to the annual turnover of students, behavioral modification

towards sustainability initiatives is an important factor in helping UCSB achieve its sustainability

goals. In regards to waste management, UCSB currently diverts 70% of its waste from the landfill;

however, in order to improve the waste diversion percentage, focusing on behavioral modification

is of the utmost importance, as an individual’s decision of where they place their waste is the

determining factor of success for many waste management programs.

The Refuse & Recycling Research Center (R3C) at UCSB has sought to improve the University’s

waste management practices. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the

relationship that exists between individuals and the campus’ waste infrastructure as they dispose

of their waste. A total of around 1,300 individuals and their interactions with the waste that they

disposed of at campus waste receptacles were observed.

The UCSB campus is approximately 1 ,055 acres and is home to around 26,000 students, faculty and

staff, as well as many visitors. At UCSB, the waste infrastructure is comprised of three waste

streams: landfill, recycling, and compost. While landfill and recycling receptacles can be found

throughout the campus, many of the compost receptacles are located within the vicinity of the

campus eateries. The following materials can be accepted in aforementioned waste streams:

Recycling: Plastics 1-7, glass, metal, newspaper, cardboard, office paper, magazines, plastic

wrap

Landfill: chip bags, snack bags, candy bar/granola wrappers, Styrofoam, contaminated

materials, tape, Mylar

Compost: all food scraps, soiled paper products, PLA 7 products, compostable serviceware

that meets ASTM D6400 requirements

While there is not a definite campus standard for waste receptacles at UCSB, the most commonly

found outdoor bins are (APPENDIX I):

Open-top: round cylinder bins with a circular opening; many of these have now been paired

to include both recycling and landfill

Bertha Clusters: a receptacle with four openings, one for the following – newspaper,

aluminum and plastics #1-6, office pack, and landfill

BigBelly Solar: solar-powered compacting receptacles used for recycling, landfill, and

compost; each has a hopper door

4

In total, the University has 316 landfill receptacles, 97 recycling receptacles, and 6 compost

receptacles. The BigBelly Solar receptacles are the main public outdoor receptacles that are

designated for compost, which are located around the central public eateries.

Based on previous campus waste audits and informal observations at each of the central public

eateries, it was believed that personal waste sorting practices could be improved, which would

have a notable impact on increasing the University’s overall waste diversion percentage. Given that

these are high traffic areas and significant amounts of materials are disposed of in these locations

relative to other parts of campus, the campus eateries and their patrons were quickly identified to

be the focus of this study. It was predicted that individuals would look at both the bin signage and

at their specific items in hand in order to aid them with disposing their materials into the correct

waste receptacles. In addition to this, it was believed that individuals would be exceptionally

knowledgeable of recycling practices and that the majority of recyclable waste would be placed into

the recycling bin.

METHODOLOGY

Locations

The observations of this study were focused at three main campus eateries: The Arbor, Coral Tree

Café, and Courtyard Café, each of which are operated by the University Center (UCen), UCSB’s on-

campus dining services unit; however, each eatery has their own defining characteristics.

The Arbor is centrally located on the Main Campus and receives consistent foot traffic from the

campus community, as it is located along the main campus corridor and across from the library.

Items sold at The Arbor include products from the UCen and snack items from a variety of outside

vendors. The Arbor is also home to two l eased tenants, Woodstock’s, a pizzeria, and Subway. In

addition, two food carts operated by outside vendors are located in the vicinity of The Arbor. The

Arbor has outdoor seating and table arrangements of around 29 tables with approximately 116

seats, which are set up in a rectangular formation. While The Arbor features one of the BigBelly

Solar receptacles, it also has six open-top landfill receptacles scattered throughout the outdoor

seating area.

The Coral Tree Café is located on the Main Campus adjacent to academic and administrative

buildings. Items sold at Coral Tree Café include products from the UCen and snack items from a

variety of outside vendors. There are no outside vendors or leased tenants at Coral Tree Café. It has

both indoor and outdoor seating. The outdoor seating features around 40 tables with a mix of two-

person and four-person tables. The outdoor waste infrastructure originally included one BigBelly

Solar receptacle along with three open-top landfill receptacles, all of which were dispersed

throughout the outdoor seating area. In between the initial and second observational periods, the

three open-top landfill receptacles were removed.

5

The Courtyard Café is located on the outer edge of the Main Campus adjacent to academic buildings

that primarily have a science focus. Items sold at Courtyard Café include products from the UCen

and snack items from a variety of outside vendors. Courtyard Café is also home to one leased

tenant, Yoshinoya. Courtyard Café has both indoor and outdoor seating. The outdoor seating

features around 20 tables with approximately 80 seats. The tables are arranged in an “L” shape

with the majority being located on the east side of the building. The outdoor waste infrastructure

originally included one BigBelly Solar receptacle along with four open-top landfill receptacles. In

between the initial and second observational periods, three of the four open-top landfill receptacles

were removed.

Initial Observations

Approval for this project from the Office of Research at UCSB was received prior to the start of

observations. Individuals were initially observed at the outdoor seating areas of the Coral Tree Café,

Courtyard Café, and The Arbor (described above). Observations were conducted by two student-

researchers at each of the sites. The initial observation period was seven weeks long (October 1st –

November 18th, 2013) and included a total of around 50 hours of observation. Observations were

primarily conducted between the hours of 11am-1pm, in order to target the busiest times at each of

the eateries.

During each of the observation sessions, notes were recorded on individuals and their waste

sorting practices as they approached the bins and at the time of disposal. The following notes were

recorded by the observers: gender, alone or in a group (if in a group, number of individuals);

whether or not they looked at the materials; whether or not they looked at the bin signage; student

or non-student; appropriate waste stream for the material; the waste stream the material was

placed; notes on the specific material type in hand. Additional information was recorded on the

individual’s specific interactions when pertained to the overall purpose of the study. On particular

occasions, notes were taken on the individual’s specific path to and from the waste receptacles;

observations were also conducted for open-top receptacles in the nearby areas (APPENDIX II).

Additional Variables

Aggregating data from initial observations encouraged a two-day waste audit. The waste audit for

each location was conducted using methods outlined by Associated Students Recycling at UCSB. The

waste audit provided additional insight about personal waste sorting practices, which included

individuals combining different materials into a single container, as well as the confusion around

certain materials and their appropriate waste streams. In addition, the initial observation revealed

that compostable and recyclable material were being disposed of in the unpaired, open-top landfill

bins at each location due to their abundance and spatial convenience. It was also observed that

individuals that did take the time to read the waste signage often sorted their waste incorrectly. The

6

aforementioned observations promoted the development and pilot of new waste signage along with

the removal of all outdoor open-top landfill receptacles at Courtyard Café and Coral Tree Café.

Signage Redesign

Signage redesign was based on the observations made from the initial observational period.

Although uniform in formatting for each waste stream, the initial signage (Signage A) at UCSB

contained significant amounts of pictures and words (APPENDIX III). Specifically it displayed

cluttered photos that did not address materials specific to what would be disposed of at the public

receptacles, the words listed were repetitive and difficult to read due to the small font, and many of

the materials were outdated since new compostable materials had been introduced to the eateries.

Two formats of new signage were piloted, both with updated pictures pertaining to what

specifically was being disposed of at the public eateries. An all pictorial signage (Signage B) was

created in addition to another format that contained both pictures and words (Signage C). In the

new signage, each of the pictures were enclosed with a circle and enlarged, in an effort to draw

attention to the items. The font was also significantly enlarged in the new signage that contained

words (APPENDIX III).

The new signage formats, in addition to the initial signage were displayed together, and then an

informal survey to the campus community was conducted at the on-campus farmers market. Data

from the survey suggested that Signage C was the most appealing and would help individuals sort

their waste more effectively and efficiently.

Additional Variables Applied

In addition to bin signage, three different types of informational signage were introduced at each

location. At The Arbor Café, signage at the cashier check-out stand was introduced that reminded

individuals throw their items away at the BigBelly Solar receptacles outside; at the Coral Tree Café

small signage was placed on the shelves inside the café that indicated if the material was recyclable,

landfill or compostable; at the Courtyard Café signage was placed on the entrance/exit door

reminding individuals to dispose of their items in the BigBelly Solar receptacles (APPENDIX IV).

Secondary Observation

The secondary observation followed the same methodology as the initial observational period. The

secondary observational period included around 26 hours of observation over the course of 5

weeks (April 1st – May 1st, 2014). Again, on particular occasions, notes were taken on the

individual’s specific path to and from the waste receptacles.

7

Data Analysis

Throughout both observational periods, a diverse amount of materials were disposed of. In order to

ease the process of analyzing the amount of data collected the most commonly thrown away items

were identified and grouped together under consistent headings. For example, there were many

different types of paper products disposed of, such as fliers, magazines, and envelopes; yet, for the

sake of analyzing the data, these related materials were categorized under the more general

heading of “paper,” as the aforementioned paper products can be recycled together at UCSB.

After organizing the data into specific groups of materials, the data from both the initial and

secondary observations were analyzed into the following main categories:

Total Properly Sorted Material: percentage of the total materials correctly sorted into each

of the three waste streams (recycling, landfill, and compost)at all three eateries (APPENDIX

V)

Properly Sorted Material at The Arbor: percentage of the total materials correctly sorted

into each of the three waste streams (recycling, landfill, and compost) from The Arbor

Properly Sorted Material at Coral Tree Café: percentage of the total materials correctly

sorted into each of the three waste streams (recycling, landfill, and compost) from Coral

Tree Café

Properly Sorted Material at Courtyard Café: percentage of the total materials correctly

sorted into each of the three waste streams (recycling, landfill, and compost) from

Courtyard Café

In addition to the categories listed above, the data was further broken down into the following two

categories:

Specific Material Sorting Rates: individual sorting rate calculations for specific materials

(APPENDIX V)

Contents of Waste Receptacles: what the contents and their respective waste stream were

of each recycling, landfill, and compost bins. (APPENDIX V)

RESULTS

In the initial observation period of 50 hours, 638 individuals along with 1,218 discarded materials were observed. In the second observational period of around 26 hours, 661 individuals along with 1,221 discarded materials were observed. In total, 1,299 individuals and 2,439 discarded materials were recorded in 76 hours of observation.

8

The following figures represent the percentage of materials sorted correctly at each of the three

eateries along with the total percentage of materials sorted correctly for both the initial and

secondary observational periods:

Figure 1: Percentage of material sorted correctly at The Arbor for both the initial and secondary observational periods

From the initial to the secondary observational period, the correct sorting rate for recycling at The

Arbor decreased by 8%. However, the correct sorting rate for landfill materials increased by 9%,

and the correct sorting rate for compostable materials increased by 11%. This resulted in an overall

4% increase in the correct sorting rate at The Arbor.

72%

64% 60%

69%

34%

45%

50% 54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Initial Observation


Initial Observation


Initial Observation


Initial Observation


Recycling Landfill Compost TOTAL

Percentange of Material Sorted Correctly at The Arbor

9

Figure 2: Percentage of material sorted correctly at Coral Tree Café for both the initial and secondary observational periods

From the initial to the secondary observational period, the correct sorting rate for recycling at Coral

Tree Café decreased by 1%. However, the correct sorting rate for landfill materials increased by

26%, and the correct sorting rate for compostable materials increased by 12%. This resulted in an

overall 11% increase in the correct sorting rate at Coral Tree Café.

55% 54%

43%

69%

48%

60%

48%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Initial Observation


Initial Observation


Initial Observation


Initial Observation



Percentage of Material Sorted Correctly at Coral Tree Café

10

Figure 3: Percentage of material sorted correctly at Courtyard Café for both the initial and secondary observational periods

From the initial to the secondary observational period, the correct sorting rate for recycling at

Courtyard Café decreased by 19%. However, the correct sorting rate for landfill materials increased

by 7%, and the correct sorting rate for compostable materials increased by 20%. This resulted in an

overall 13% increase in the correct sorting rate at Courtyard Café.

66%

47%

71%

78%

44%

64%

48%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Initial Observation


Initial Observation


Initial Observation


Initial Observation



Percentage of Material Sorted Correctly at Courtyard Café

11

Figure 4: Percentage of material sorted correctly for both the initial and secondary observational periods

From the initial to the secondary observational period, the combined correct sorting rate for

recycling at each of the three eateries decreased by 8%. However, the comprehensive correct

sorting rate for landfill materials increased by 12% and the comprehensive correct sorting rate for

compostable materials increased by 14%. This resulted in an overall 10% increase in the total

correct sorting rate at each of the three eateries.

Chi-Square Analysis

A chi-square analysis was conducted with Professor Dusty Perkins in order to determine if the

correlation between signage redesign and implementation was statistically significant. For recycling, the

results show that X2 exceeds the test statistic for P= 0.05 (X2 table=3.84 ), indicating that there is less

than a (5%) chance that the relationship between signage redesign and the change in pre-signage vs.

post-signage waste sorting practices are due to chance alone. In this case however, the post-signage

period had significantly lower sorting rates than expected by random chance.

The chi-square analysis for landfill’s waste sorting habits provides that the test statistic from the X2

analysis falls between P=0.1 and 0.05 on the contingency table, indicating that there is a greater that 5%

(and less than 10% chance) that the results observed are due to chance alone. Because the probability

value is greater than the pre-determined value of P=0.05, there is no significant difference in landfill

sorting rates based upon pre and post-signage periods. However, because the test result is less than

66%

58% 59%

71%

44%

58%

48%

58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Initial Observation


Initial Observation


Initial Observation


Initial Observation



Total Percentage of Material Sorted Correctly

12

P=0.1, there is the possibility that signage alteration would have a different effect. The lack of statistical

significance found here can most likely be attributed to the fact that incorrect sorting values differ little

among pre- and post-signage observation periods. Further sampling to increase the sample size may

offer statistically significant support for this analysis.

Lastly, for compost the test statistic from the X2 greatly exceeds the test statistic for P= 0.05 (X2

table=3.84). This indicates that there is much less than (5%) chance that the results observed here could

be due to chance alone, and conclude that there is a significant difference in compost sorting rates

based upon pre and post-signage periods.

DISCUSSION

Differences between Eateries

There are many notable distinctions between each of the three eateries which can aid in

understanding the differences between the graphs above. Due to the specific location of each eatery

in relation to the campus layout, different types of groups of the campus community tend to

frequent certain eateries more than others, and in addition to this, tend to utilize each eatery for

different purposes. Several other factors such as the arrangement of the outdoor seating areas and

the variety of products sold at each eatery impacted the results of this study.

The Arbor

Since The Arbor is located directly across from the campus library and is in the middle of the

central walkway that cuts through the campus, it is frequented by students, faculty, staff, and

visitors but primarily used by undergraduate students as they make their way through campus.

Thus, the Arbor’s data reflects waste that was more often thrown away by individuals who were

passing by on their way to their next destination rather than stationary individuals that had

recently finished a meal. The Arbor also functions as the main location on campus where student

and off-campus organizations table and advertise their groups by handing out fliers and other

promotional materials. In addition to the presence of off-campus and student organizations, The

Arbor also contains two leased tenants along with two nearby food carts. This means that The

Arbor’s waste stream is significantly diverse and varies on a daily basis. The more diverse a waste

stream is, the more confusing and complex it is for individuals to sort and dispose of their materials

properly.

The overall percentage of recyclable material sorted correctly at The Arbor decreased between the

initial and secondary observational periods. One possible explanation for this could be that during

the secondary observational period, fewer groups tabled at The Arbor. When groups table, they

often hand out fliers, the majority of which are disposed of almost immediately by the recipients.

During the initial observational period, many groups were tabling at The Arbor as it was a time

13

where most student organizations were recruiting new members. The amount of students present

and types of organizations present could have influenced the type of material disposed of.

The overall percentage of both landfill and compostable material sorted correctly at The Arbor

increased between the initial and secondary observational periods. This can likely be attributed to

the implementation of the newer and clearer signage.

Between the initial and secondary observational periods, there was a slight increase in the overall

percentage of material sorted correctly at The Arbor. This 4% increase was notably smaller than

the percentage increases recorded at both Coral Tree Café and Courtyard Café. There are several

explanations for why The Arbor only experienced a minor increase in its overall percentage of

material sorted correctly. First, as mentioned earlier, The Arbor has a significantly diverse waste

stream, one that is more diverse than the waste streams at either of the two other eateries. The

diversity of The Arbor’s waste stream makes it difficult to design signage that incorporates a wide

enough variety of materials and items. Secondly, unlike at the other two eateries, the open-top

landfill receptacles at The Arbor were not removed from the area. These open-top landfill

receptacles were still heavily utilized during the secondary observational period, meaning that

many compostable and recyclable materials were still disposed of into a landfill receptacle. Lastly,

The Arbor does not have a consistent customer base. Every day, thousands of different individuals

pass through The Arbor, making it more difficult for The Arbor to establish a consistent customer

base that is familiar with The Arbor’s products. The larger and more diverse a customer base, the

more difficult it is to establish familiarity with the products, a step which aids in the process of

correctly sorting materials. A combination of these factors explains why there was only a slight

increase in the total percentage of material sorted correct at The Arbor.

Coral Tree Café

Coral Tree Café, which is surrounded by both academic and administrative buildings, is mainly

frequented by staff and faculty members and is primarily used for sit-down lunches and meetings.

Thus, the data collected from Coral Tree Café reflects waste that was often thrown away by staff or

faculty members who had just finished lunch.

The overall percentage of both landfill and compostable material sorted correctly at Coral Tree Café

significantly increased. This again, is likely to have been caused by the implementation of the new

signage. On top of this, while no formal studies were conducted on the effectiveness of the

additional signage that was placed inside of Coral Tree Café (signage which indicated beneath each

product as to which waste stream it should be disposed into), it is possible that this signage

contributed to the increases in both of these percentages. Additionally, unlike at The Arbor, Coral

Tree Café has a relatively consistent customer base, making it easier for individuals to familiarize

themselves with the café’s products. When individuals are more familiar with products, it becomes

more likely that they will sort the products correctly. This is another factor that could have

contributed to the two increases in percentages discussed above. The overall percentage of

recyclable material sorted correctly at Coral Tree Café decreased by 1%, an almost negligible

amount. Thus, the overall recycling rate at Coral Tree Café remained relatively stagnant and

unchanged, which could have been likely attributed to the consistent customer base.

14

Coral Tree Café’s relatively high overall percentage rate of compostable material sorted correctly is

likely due to the café’s high usage of compostable materials. The café uses compostable plates,

napkins, utensils, bowls, clamshells, and cups. Coral Tree Café provides a higher amount of

compostable materials than either of the two other eateries. This can be attributed to the café’s lack

of having a leased tenant and in turn, having a relatively consistent and controlled waste stream

because of minimal diversity in their packaging and items sold at the eatery.

Because of this breadth of compostable materials, many individuals were able to dispose of their

materials as a single unit. When items belonging to the same waste stream can be disposed of

together it becomes easier for individuals to place these items into the correct waste streams. Thus,

many individuals were able to dispose of all of their items into the compost receptacle as a single

unit, which is likely to have contributed to Coral Tree Café’s overall high percentage rate of

compostable material sorted correctly.

Between the initial and secondary observational periods, Coral Tree Café experienced an 11%

increase in its overall percentage of material sorted correctly. As mentioned earlier, much of this is

due to the implementation of the new signage. However, the removal of the three open-top landfill

receptacles also contributed to this increase in the percentage. By removing the bins, individuals

who ate outside were then directed to utilize the recycling and compost units of the BigBelly Solar

receptacles.

Courtyard Café

Courtyard Café, which is surrounded primarily by science-focused buildings, has a consistant

customer base, many of which are graduate students who come to eat at the café for lunch. Thus,

the data collected from Courtyard Café reflects waste that was often thrown away by graduate

students. The café is also home to one leased tenant, Yoshinoya, a Japanese fast food chain. At the

beginning of the academic school year, Yoshinoya was contracted to provide 100% compostable

food packaging. However, during the initial observational period of the study, it was discovered that

Yoshinoya was using several products that were not compostable, the main one being a plastic bowl

made of polypropylene. In addition to this, Yoshinoya handed out plastic bags with every order. In

between the initial and secondary observational periods, Yoshinoya was contacted about these

issues and as a result, ceased to automatically hand out plastic bags with every order. They are still

currently working on finding a compostable alternative to their plastic bowls.

It is important to note that Yoshinoya uses a compostable clamshell which differs in appearance to

the other compostable clamshells used by the University at Coral Tree Café. The compostable

clamshells at Coral Tree Café are beige and paper-based, while the compostable clamshells used at

Yoshinoya are black and PLA 7 plastic, making them less easily identifiable as compostable.

The overall percentage of recyclable material sorted correctly at Courtyard Café decreased between

the initial and secondary observational periods. One possible explanation for why this occurred can

be attributed to the significant decrease in the amount of plastic bags that were handed out at

Yoshinoya. During the initial observational period, when Yoshinoya was handing out plastic bags to

every customer, the majority of individuals grouped all of their items into the plastic bag before

15

throwing the bag away as a single unit. Most of these plastic bags were disposed of in either the

landfill or recycling receptacles. Because of this, it was difficult to identify which materials were

being disposed of into which waste streams and many materials went uncounted for. Once

Yoshinoya altered their policy of handing out plastic bags, a significant decrease in the disposal of

the filled plastic bags as a single unit was noted. This change in policy placed Yoshinoya customers

into a new position where they were encouraged to sort their materials rather than throwing them

away as a single unit inside of a plastic bag. The decrease in the overall percentage of recyclable

material sorted correctly at Courtyard Café could be attributed to the fact that once individuals

were encouraged to sort their materials, they were less knowledgeable about which products were

recyclable than had previously been thought.

Additionally, there is another explanation for why the overall percentage of recyclable material

sorted correctly at Courtyard Café decreased. By removing three of the four open-top landfill

receptacles, more individuals were encouraged to utilize the BigBelly Solar receptacles, receptacles

which many individuals are more unfamiliar with. The switch from using the open-top landfill

receptacles to the BigBelly Solar receptacles potentially revealed many individuals’ poor waste

sorting practices.

The overall percentage of both landfill and compostable material sorted correctly at Courtyard Café

increased between the initial and secondary observational periods. This can likely be attributed to a

variety of factors, the main one being the implementation of the newer and clearer signage. In

addition to this, the removal of three of the four open-top landfill receptacles encouraged

individuals to utilize the recycling and compost units of the BigBelly Solar receptacles. Lastly, the

discontinuation of Yoshinoya’s policy of automatically handing out plastic bags with every order is

likely to have been a factor in the increases in both of these percentages. During the initial

observational period, most individuals who ate from Yoshinoya then disposed of all of their

materials as a single unit, within the plastic bag, into either the landfill or recycling bin. Thus, the

plastic bags were discouraging individuals from actually sorting their waste. By eliminating the

plastic bags, individuals were encouraged to sort their items.

Disposal of PLA 7 Products

As the data reflects, after the new sign implementation there was an increase in the overall waste

diversion and sorting rates. However, there was still noticeable confusion around certain items,

many of which were made out of PLA 7 plastic.

The majority of noticeable confusion surrounded the plastic-like compostable products which were

made out of PLA 7. The main materials involved in this confusion were the PLA 7 cups and PLA 7

containers, though there was additional confusion surrounding the PLA 7 utensils. Prior to the

implementation of the new signage, PLA 7 cups and containers had a 25% correct sorting rate. It is

important to note that during the initial observational period, the compost bin signage made no

direct reference to PLA 7 materials. Thus, even those who did look at the bin signage still had

difficulty sorting correctly, which reaffirmed the need for new signage to be developed.

16

The new compost signage explicitly included an image and description of the exact PLA 7 items

utilized at the eateries with the hopes of increasing the correct sorting rates for these materials.

Despite this significant change, the post-signage correct sorting rate for PLA 7 cups and containers

only slightly increased by 6%, to an overall 31% correct sorting rate. This could be due to a

combination of factors that have been identified.

Firstly, it was noticed that many individuals disposed of their PLA 7 products without looking at

either the material itself or at the bin signage. Specifically, many individuals disposed of their PLA 7

products into the recycling receptacle without looking at the material or signage. This could be due

to the fact that (1) many individuals are still unfamiliar with knowing that PLA 7 is considered

compostable at UCSB, (2) PLA 7 is a different material than other plastics, #1-7, (3) or the

individuals were unaware that the materials in their hands were made of PLA 7. Because of its

many plastic-like qualities, specifically in visual similarity, it is easy for PLA 7 to be mistaken as

recyclable plastic. In the post-signage secondary observational period, PLA 7 cups and containers

were disposed of into the recycling receptacle 44% of the time, into the landfill receptacle 25% of

the time, and into the compost receptacle 31% of the time. Thus, the majority of PLA 7 cups and

container were disposed of into the recycling receptacle, furthering the theory that most

individuals incorrectly associate PLA 7 items with the recycling waste stream instead of with the

compost waste stream. As was witnessed in this study, this association cannot be altered solely by

creating newer signage. Additional strategies such as outside education, easier identifiable

compostable products, and uniformity among compostable products are likely to be needed in

order to effectively aid individuals in correctly sorting PLA 7 products.

The overall increase in the total percentage of material sorted correctly shows that the

implementation of new signage had a positive influence in aiding individuals to correctly sort their

waste. However, the decrease in recycling sorting rates at each of the eateries, combined with the

fact that there is still much room for the overall total percentage of material sorted correctly to

increase, indicates that the implementation of new signage by itself is not enough to create the

significant change needed to aid the UCSB campus in reaching its waste management goals.

Additional factors such as outside education, easier identifiable compostable and recyclable

products, and uniformity among all products on campus are needed in order to aid individuals in

correctly sorting their waste.

Additional Observations

It is important to mention that when an individual placed their item into the correct receptacle, it

may not be directly attributed to the individual’s knowledge of where the materials should be

correctly placed. It cannot be assumed that there was a direct correlation between individuals’

intentions and their actions when placing materials into the receptacles. While some individuals

may have intentionally and knowingly placed their items into the correct receptacle, others may

have gotten lucky with their decision. Regardless of whether or not one item was correctly sorted,

this is not representative of an individual’s comprehensive knowledge of correct waste sorting

17

practices. For example, one individual who placed a compostable bowl into the compost receptacle,

then placed a Ziploc bag into the receptacle as well, thus suggesting that the individual’s correct

placement of the compostable bowl perhaps was more due to chance than to substantial

knowledge.

In addition, it was also noted that most individuals who took the time to look at the bin signage

often only looked at those signs which correlated with the bin that they were already heading

towards, or ended up using. For example, an individual with a PLA 7 cup may immediately head to

the recycling bin and glance at the recycling bin signage, yet fail to look at either the landfill or

compost signs to get an overall understanding of where the item should be placed.

As noted, it is difficult to get individuals to actually read all of the signs. If individuals took the time

to read the signs from top to bottom, it is projected that there would be close to a 100% sorting

rate. Thus, additional educational components and strategies can be introduced in order to increase

individual’s sorting rates.

FUTURE RESEARCH

In addition to the sorting rate data, there were several other components of the research that could

be expanded upon in future studies.

As noted earlier, one major pattern that was observed was determining whether looking at the bin

signage corresponded to the correct placement of the material in the individual’s hand. While this

study focused more on the placement of materials, further research should be conducted that

specifically focuses on whether or not individuals look at the signage and if this then leads to

correct sorting practices. This study would help determine if there is a direct correlation between

the signage and the sorting rates.

Another area for expansion would be in assessing the convenience factor of waste disposal.

Observations revealed that individuals threw their trash away in the receptacle most convenient to

where they were sitting, resulting in a higher use of the open trash cans due to their presence

(APPENDIX VI). It was also noticed that individuals generally disposed of items into the bin that

were in the direct path of where they were walking from, or where they were heading to. Many

items disposed of in the open trash cans were actually compostable or recyclable. A study focusing

on the convenience factor of personal waste disposal could yield valuable information on setting up

an effective and efficient waste infrastructure.

An additional observation that could be expanded is exploring the correct sorting rate of

individuals when the dispose of their waste as a unit or when they dispose of each item separately.

This would be important to understand because entities that distribute a variety of packaging,

18

which are recyclable, landfill, or compostable, may be making it more difficult for individuals to

properly sort their waste.

It would also be interesting to evaluate the influence on individuals when disposing of their waste

when alone vs. in groups. Social pressures in a large group of individuals could influence the

behavior of the rest of the group when it comes to waste disposal.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are a several organizations that made this research possible. UCSB’s Facilities Management,

along with Matthew O’Carroll, the Refuse, Recycling & Water Efficiency Manager, provided the

student researchers with staff support and guidance throughout the project, including invaluable

feedback on the development of the new signage. UCSB’s The Green Initiative Fund (TGIF), granted

R3C with the funding for two student researcher positions for the year. The Associated Students

Recycling Program (ASR) assisted the student researchers in the informal waste audit and worked

with them to finalize the new signage. Lastly, UCen dining, the campus-run dining facilities

approved and supported the installation of the new signage at the campus eateries.

19

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

BigBelly Solar Receptacles (recycling, landfill, and compost)

Open-top Landfill Receptacle

20

Bertha Cluster

21

APPENDIX II

Recording Sheet #1

Used to record: material type was in hand (recycling, landfill, compost, or miscellaneous), where the

item was placed (recycling, landfill, compost), and specific material identification

22

Recording Sheet #2

Used to record detailed notes regarding: gender, group type/size, whether they looked at signage,

whether they looked at the material in hand, student status, and noteworthy interactions with the

receptacle

23

APPENDIX III

Signage A Signage C

24

Signage A Signage C

25

Signage A Signage C

26

APPENDIX IV


Door Signage at Courtyard Café

27

Additional Variables

Materials Signage Placed Underneath Various Products at Coral Tree Café

28


Signage Placed at the Cash Registers at The Arbor

29

APPENDIX V

When entering the data, we made sure to count an individual as “1” regardless of how many items

they threw away. This enabled us to gather two different types of data: 1) the overall number of

people that we observed, and 2) the overall number of materials that were disposed of.

Pre-Signage Data Post-Signage Data

Total People 638 Total People 661

Total Materials 1218 Total Materials 1221

Properly Sorted Material Properly Sorted Material

Recycling 157 Recycling 148

Landfill 53 Landfill 72

Compost 378 Compost 490

Total: 588 Total: 710

% sorted correctly: 48% % sorted correctly: 58%

Overall between the first phase and the second phase of our research, we observed a positive

increase in the sorting rate from 48% to 58%, or a 10% increase.

The following charts provide a specific look at the recycling, landfill, and compost sorting rates. The

correct sorting rates are highlighted in blue:

Pre-Signage Data: Post-Signage Data:

Recycling Placed in: % Recycling Placed in: %

Recycling 157 66% Recycling 148 58%

Landfill 68 29% Landfill 86 33%

Compost 12 5% Compost 23 9%


Landfill Placed in: % Landfill Placed in: %





Compost Placed in: % Compost Placed in: %





30

The following charts provide a look at the general material make-up of the bins in terms of

recycling, landfill, and compost:


The following charts represent the various sorting rates of certain stand-out items. The correct

sorting rates are highlighted in blue:

Recyclable Materials Sorting Rate


Paper % Paper %




Total: 15 Total: 22

Recycling Bin Make Up %

Recycling 148 52%

Landfill 17 6%

Compost 122 43%

Total: 287

Landfill Bin Make Up %

Recycling 86 22%

Landfill 72 18%

Compost 239 60%

Total: 397

Compost Bin Make Up %

Recycling 23 4%

Landfill 13 2%

Compost 490 93%

Total: 526

Recycling Bin Make Up %

Recycling 157 50%

Landfill 20 6%

Compost 137 44%

Total: 314

Landfill Bin Make Up %

Recycling 68 15%

Landfill 53 11%

Compost 341 74%

Total: 462

Compost Bin Make Up %

Recycling 12 9%

Landfill 17 13%

Compost 103 78%

Total: 132

31

Saran Wrap % Saran Wrap %




Total: 14 Total: 33

Plastic Bottles % Plastic Bottles %




Total: 47 Total: 46

Sushi Container % Sushi Container %




Total: 9 Total: 22

Landfill Materials Sorting Rate


Wrappers* % Wrappers* %




Total: 37 Total: 35

Condiment Packet % Condiment Packet %




Total: 12 Total: 16

Compostable Materials Sorting Rate


PLA 7 Cups % PLA 7 Cups %




Total: 59 Total: 48

32

Compostable Plates % Compostable Plates %




Total: 83 Total: 70

Compostable Utensils % Compostable Utensils %





Napkins % Napkins %





PLA 7 Containers % PLA 7 containers %




Total: 30 Total: 39

Compostable Bowl % Compostable Bowl %




Total: 64 Total: 80

Food scraps % Food Scraps %




Total: 77 Total: 72

33

PLA 7 Cups and Containers % PLA 7 Cups and Containers %




Total: 89 Total: 87

Yoshinoya Clamshell** % Yoshinoya Clamshell** %




Total: 12 Total: 45

Compostable Coffee Cup % Compostable Coffee Cup %




Total: 32 Total: 30

*Wrappers: we used this heading to refer to food wrappers that belong in the landfill such as chip

bags, granola bar wrappers, candy bar wrappers, etc.

**Yoshinoya Clamshell: Yoshinoya is an eatery in the Courtyard Café that provided black

compostable clamshells which differed from the campus-provided brown compostable clamshells

34

APPENDIX VI

The Arbor, April 2, 2014

9:45 am – 12:30 pm

35

Coral Tree Café, October 18, 2013

11:15 am – 1 pm

36

Courtyard Café, October 25, 2013

1:00 pm- 2:40 pm

Documents

Behavioral economics of waste management: …...words (APPENDIX III). The new signage formats, in addition to the initial signage were displayed together, and then an informal survey